Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clearing up some misunderstandingsBefore addressing the (re)criminalization of drug use, we must clarify the distorted (re)emergence of certain points in the legal and scientific fields, including public health.Firstly, no country has breached international agreements concerning international trafficking and the illicit nature of certain psychoactive substances, called drugs 1 .Observed changes in drug policies conserve these Treaties.In national State policies, such as Portugal, possession for personal consumption is not criminalized, but it is subject to psychosocial intervention and, in case of recidivism, to noncriminal sanctions 2,3 .Changes in drug policies that, in addition to possession for personal consumption, involve the nature of markets refer to national legislation.Changes regarding the rules of use and the market are restricted to Cannabis and derivatives.Such is the case of differing policies such as those of US states and policies adopted in Uruguay and the Netherlands.We intend not to discuss their specificities, only to underline that none violates international treaties, none is formally ratified by the respective national States, and should not be understood as a supposed broad drug "liberation" or specifically of cannabis.Although local laws differ from each other, they all include clear rules which can be consulted in articles and reports, such as between member States of the European Community 4 .Below we will discuss the paradigmatic cases of the US state of Oregon, the province of British Columbia in Canada, and Brazil.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".